Sometimes, game scouts find tusks in the bush. This happens when an elephant has died of natural causes, or when a poacher has shot and wounded an elephant, and it dies later. The game scouts bring all such tusks back to headquarters.
These twelve pairs of tusks would have been worth tens of thousands of dollars to a Chinese ivory dealer, had the trigger men not been caught.
This elephant tusk has been exposed to the elements for too long and is no longer valuable.
Tusks and bones get scattered around the landscape because people or animals pick them up and carry them. An elephant's tusks never just "fall out" of its mouth.
|
What is Stockpiled Ivory? “Stockpiled ivory” refers to the elephant tusks that many governments have sitting in warehouses. Although some of the tusks come from elephants that died of natural causes (game scouts pick up the tusks as they find them in the field), most of the tusks are confiscated from poachers. In Tanzania they call the warehouse the “Ivory Room.” The Ivory Room is bigger than a football field, and it is lined floor-to-ceiling, row upon row, with shelves of elephant tusks. In 2014, Daily Mail said that Tanzania’s Ivory Room held “the world’s largest ivory stockpile, with more than 34,000 tusks, weighing 125 tons” (Fletcher).
Most governments keep their stockpiled ivory with no public plan for what they will do with it. Here’s why: if the ivory is sitting in a warehouse, one day, the country might be able to sell it, and the government officials might be able to claim some of the cash for their departments or their pockets. Also, as long as the stockpile is sitting in a warehouse, a corrupt official can continue brainstorming ways to steal directly from the pile and sell what he steals. Finally, if and when the African elephant goes extinct, the tusks will be even more valuable. Twice now, African governments have auctioned off their stockpiled ivory to the highest bidder. In 1997 CITES approved a one-off sale that happened in 1999. That was when Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe sold $5 million in raw ivory to Japan. In 2002 and 2004, CITES approved the second one-off sale which took place in 2008. That was when South Africa, Botswana, Namibia and Zimbabwe sold $15.5 million in raw ivory to Japan and China. The governments that supported the two one-off sales said they hoped to flood the market to bring down the price of ivory. They said that making more ivory available would stop poaching. This was never scientifically or mathematically substantiated. It is suspected that the African and Asian government officials in charge at the time were eager to get their hands on the cash these sales would bring, either for their government departments or for themselves personally. In the end, these one-off sales drove up the demand for ivory. Although people have come up with many reasons for the current poaching crisis, the fact is the tusks from the sale to China arrived in China in 2009 and 2010, and the poaching climaxed in 2011. |
How Did the One-off Sales Increase Poaching?
Each piece of ivory sold to China came with a certificate. Because nobody can tell by looking at a certificate which piece of ivory it goes with, the certificates get used again and again to justify the import and sale of each new piece of poached ivory. The system is so corrupt that a dealer can sell hundreds of tusks with just one certificate. In fact, the certificates have become so valuable that an ivory dealer will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have one. In 2013 CITES recognized this problem when it said, “The legality of any particular piece of ivory comes down to paperwork, and weaknesses in the paper trail can allow illicit ivory to be sold as licit. If authorities fail to enforce paperwork requirements, ivory from poached elephants can be openly sold” (“Elephants”). The end result is this: as long as the certificates are still being recognized, illegal ivory sales and poaching will go on. Thus in order to stop poaching, China must outlaw all existing certificates. Of course, this also means that the Chinese government must stop selling the ivory it bought in the one-off sale, since those sales put more certificates in circulation.
Why Burn All that Ivory?
A government may burn some or all of its stockpiled ivory in a big, public display in order to raise awareness of the poaching problem, to show that poaching is wrong or to show that the people in charge are taking action.
Many people believe that keeping the stockpiles around encourages more poaching. They say that having existing stockpiles gives everyone hope that the piles will one day be sold. This gives the Chinese dealers hope that they will one day get more ivory and more certificates. This in turn gives smugglers and trigger men hope that they will be able to sell more poached ivory. In effect, just leaving the stockpiles there gives the criminals a reason to stay in business. As Trevor Jones from the Southern Tanzania Elephant Project says, “An existing stockpile stimulates poaching, because it gives poachers hope” (“Poaching Cloud”).
Some people say that the mass destruction of all stockpiles may get rid of corrupt officials. At the moment, there are plenty of African officials vying to sell the stockpiled ivory so the profits will end up in their departments where they can skim some cash. There may also be Asian officials vying to stay in positions of power so they get some cash for selling the ivory to the right buyers, and more cash from selling the legal certificates that come with the ivory. As long as there is the possibility of getting this extra cash, these officials are going to stay in their jobs. Only when the stockpiled ivory is gone will these officials give up the idea of getting their hands on some of that wealth and possibly leave their posts. Their departure may inspire other, less corrupt officials to take over and give elephants a chance.
Another issue is that government stockpiles are expensive to protect and easily raided. Alexander Rhodes from Stop Ivory says, “No fewer than six stockpiles [were] robbed in [2015], some by fiercely armed gangs” (Rhodes).
A similar issue is that the longer the stockpiles are around, the more chance there is for the officials who oversee them to steal from them. Sellar says the recent report that the Philippines destroyed its stockpile is questionable because it was done privately, and “there is a history of confiscated ivory disappearing from government stores there” (Sellar). There has also been some question about Kenya’s ivory stockpile. The Kenyan government’s “reticence” to say how much ivory it owns “has caused some to question whether years of corruption and pilfering might mean the strongroom contains less that it ought to” (McConnell, “The End”).
To keep government officials from losing, stealing or illegally selling tusks, CITES has requested that all governments mark the tusks and cut pieces in their stockpiles and turn in an inventory by February 28th of each year, which would allow CITES to notice significant changes in stockpiles from year to year (Koech).
Another reason to destroy the stockpiles – and commit to destroying future stockpiles – is that it will make the poachers, middlemen and dealers take the governments’ threats of prosecution and jail time more seriously. A government that is serious enough to destroy its stockpile will be perceived as determined enough to levy heavy punishments.
It has been suggested that all governments destroy their stockpiled ivory on the same day. The idea is that destroying all stockpiles at once will prove there is no future in ivory and drive the price down, thus discouraging more poaching. Economic researcher Ross Harvey from the South African Institute of International Affairs says, “Range states should put their ivory stockpiles beyond commercial use immediately and simultaneously” so that the “exchange value of elephants will . . . move towards zero” (Cruise, “How”). Notice that Harvey is for “simultaneous” burning and against countries destroying their stockpiles at random. His research, based on math and statistics, shows that each time a country destroys ivory at random, the demand spikes, meaning more elephants will be killed.
Keep in mind, although CITES can stop countries from selling their stockpiled ivory, it does not have the authority to require countries to destroy their stockpiles. For now, each government with ivory stockpiles must reach its own solution.
One African Man's Opinion
In a 2015 newspaper article, a Malawian writer wrote that his president should not destroy his country’s stockpile. The author says the many bans on ivory sales have been “forced on poor African countries by the West.” He points out that “the Elephants are already dead” and that “Malawi is poor and can use every penny available to it.” He also notes that “The West confiscates money from the illicit trade of Cocaine and they never burn the money. Their Banks earn interest from Money laundered by drug dealers.” He ends by saying his president “should insist the west bear[s] the cost of burning the Ivory.”
Although this impassioned writer ignores the fact that Malawi has been a member of the CITES decision-making body since 1982, and he makes a skewed comparison between burning tusks and burning cash, his main point that Malawi is poor and could use financial assistance still stands (“Mutharika”).
I am not suggesting that the USA or any country should pay African countries to destroy their ivory stockpiles. On the other hand, the USA and other countries could donate money to a development fund that supports any country that destroys its stockpile, especially if those countries do it on the same date and agree to burn future stockpiles on specified dates. In that way, we would be closer to the goal – decreasing poaching.
Tanzania’s Plan for its Stockpiled Ivory
Tanzania’s plan is unclear. The country applied to CITES for permission to sell part of its current stockpile, but CITES blocked the idea in 2010 and 2015. Later in 2015, when asked about Tanzania’s stockpile, Nyalandu said, “We went to Bangkok, and we went to Doha, during CITES meetings to request that we be given one-off sale permission so that we can sell and use the money to protect [wildlife]. The problem was, if you sell, it aids the market. It brings more appetite for those who want to buy ivory” (Cornell, “Crime”).
When asked specifically why Tanzania does not destroy its stockpile, he said, “We have some of the biggest possible ivory. [The tusks] are just amazing. They’re big. Those [big elephants] are no longer there. It’s like going to Germany and being able to see the dinosaur [bones]. Why would you burn a dinosaur? It continues to be a debate. We’re open about it. But for now, we’re going to keep it safe, keep it away from possibility of theft or fire, and that’s why my government entered an agreement. . . to make sure that every single ivory is DNA-ed, and we know where it came from. I would like to open this [ivory room] at some point for global research.” More recently, in March 2016, Tanzania’s new Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Professor Jumanne Maghembe, said that Tanzania has no plans to destroy its stockpile, noting that the ivory can still be used in scientific research and as evidence in legal cases against poachers (“Tanzania Says”).
Each piece of ivory sold to China came with a certificate. Because nobody can tell by looking at a certificate which piece of ivory it goes with, the certificates get used again and again to justify the import and sale of each new piece of poached ivory. The system is so corrupt that a dealer can sell hundreds of tusks with just one certificate. In fact, the certificates have become so valuable that an ivory dealer will pay hundreds of thousands of dollars just to have one. In 2013 CITES recognized this problem when it said, “The legality of any particular piece of ivory comes down to paperwork, and weaknesses in the paper trail can allow illicit ivory to be sold as licit. If authorities fail to enforce paperwork requirements, ivory from poached elephants can be openly sold” (“Elephants”). The end result is this: as long as the certificates are still being recognized, illegal ivory sales and poaching will go on. Thus in order to stop poaching, China must outlaw all existing certificates. Of course, this also means that the Chinese government must stop selling the ivory it bought in the one-off sale, since those sales put more certificates in circulation.
Why Burn All that Ivory?
A government may burn some or all of its stockpiled ivory in a big, public display in order to raise awareness of the poaching problem, to show that poaching is wrong or to show that the people in charge are taking action.
Many people believe that keeping the stockpiles around encourages more poaching. They say that having existing stockpiles gives everyone hope that the piles will one day be sold. This gives the Chinese dealers hope that they will one day get more ivory and more certificates. This in turn gives smugglers and trigger men hope that they will be able to sell more poached ivory. In effect, just leaving the stockpiles there gives the criminals a reason to stay in business. As Trevor Jones from the Southern Tanzania Elephant Project says, “An existing stockpile stimulates poaching, because it gives poachers hope” (“Poaching Cloud”).
Some people say that the mass destruction of all stockpiles may get rid of corrupt officials. At the moment, there are plenty of African officials vying to sell the stockpiled ivory so the profits will end up in their departments where they can skim some cash. There may also be Asian officials vying to stay in positions of power so they get some cash for selling the ivory to the right buyers, and more cash from selling the legal certificates that come with the ivory. As long as there is the possibility of getting this extra cash, these officials are going to stay in their jobs. Only when the stockpiled ivory is gone will these officials give up the idea of getting their hands on some of that wealth and possibly leave their posts. Their departure may inspire other, less corrupt officials to take over and give elephants a chance.
Another issue is that government stockpiles are expensive to protect and easily raided. Alexander Rhodes from Stop Ivory says, “No fewer than six stockpiles [were] robbed in [2015], some by fiercely armed gangs” (Rhodes).
A similar issue is that the longer the stockpiles are around, the more chance there is for the officials who oversee them to steal from them. Sellar says the recent report that the Philippines destroyed its stockpile is questionable because it was done privately, and “there is a history of confiscated ivory disappearing from government stores there” (Sellar). There has also been some question about Kenya’s ivory stockpile. The Kenyan government’s “reticence” to say how much ivory it owns “has caused some to question whether years of corruption and pilfering might mean the strongroom contains less that it ought to” (McConnell, “The End”).
To keep government officials from losing, stealing or illegally selling tusks, CITES has requested that all governments mark the tusks and cut pieces in their stockpiles and turn in an inventory by February 28th of each year, which would allow CITES to notice significant changes in stockpiles from year to year (Koech).
Another reason to destroy the stockpiles – and commit to destroying future stockpiles – is that it will make the poachers, middlemen and dealers take the governments’ threats of prosecution and jail time more seriously. A government that is serious enough to destroy its stockpile will be perceived as determined enough to levy heavy punishments.
It has been suggested that all governments destroy their stockpiled ivory on the same day. The idea is that destroying all stockpiles at once will prove there is no future in ivory and drive the price down, thus discouraging more poaching. Economic researcher Ross Harvey from the South African Institute of International Affairs says, “Range states should put their ivory stockpiles beyond commercial use immediately and simultaneously” so that the “exchange value of elephants will . . . move towards zero” (Cruise, “How”). Notice that Harvey is for “simultaneous” burning and against countries destroying their stockpiles at random. His research, based on math and statistics, shows that each time a country destroys ivory at random, the demand spikes, meaning more elephants will be killed.
Keep in mind, although CITES can stop countries from selling their stockpiled ivory, it does not have the authority to require countries to destroy their stockpiles. For now, each government with ivory stockpiles must reach its own solution.
One African Man's Opinion
In a 2015 newspaper article, a Malawian writer wrote that his president should not destroy his country’s stockpile. The author says the many bans on ivory sales have been “forced on poor African countries by the West.” He points out that “the Elephants are already dead” and that “Malawi is poor and can use every penny available to it.” He also notes that “The West confiscates money from the illicit trade of Cocaine and they never burn the money. Their Banks earn interest from Money laundered by drug dealers.” He ends by saying his president “should insist the west bear[s] the cost of burning the Ivory.”
Although this impassioned writer ignores the fact that Malawi has been a member of the CITES decision-making body since 1982, and he makes a skewed comparison between burning tusks and burning cash, his main point that Malawi is poor and could use financial assistance still stands (“Mutharika”).
I am not suggesting that the USA or any country should pay African countries to destroy their ivory stockpiles. On the other hand, the USA and other countries could donate money to a development fund that supports any country that destroys its stockpile, especially if those countries do it on the same date and agree to burn future stockpiles on specified dates. In that way, we would be closer to the goal – decreasing poaching.
Tanzania’s Plan for its Stockpiled Ivory
Tanzania’s plan is unclear. The country applied to CITES for permission to sell part of its current stockpile, but CITES blocked the idea in 2010 and 2015. Later in 2015, when asked about Tanzania’s stockpile, Nyalandu said, “We went to Bangkok, and we went to Doha, during CITES meetings to request that we be given one-off sale permission so that we can sell and use the money to protect [wildlife]. The problem was, if you sell, it aids the market. It brings more appetite for those who want to buy ivory” (Cornell, “Crime”).
When asked specifically why Tanzania does not destroy its stockpile, he said, “We have some of the biggest possible ivory. [The tusks] are just amazing. They’re big. Those [big elephants] are no longer there. It’s like going to Germany and being able to see the dinosaur [bones]. Why would you burn a dinosaur? It continues to be a debate. We’re open about it. But for now, we’re going to keep it safe, keep it away from possibility of theft or fire, and that’s why my government entered an agreement. . . to make sure that every single ivory is DNA-ed, and we know where it came from. I would like to open this [ivory room] at some point for global research.” More recently, in March 2016, Tanzania’s new Minister for Natural Resources and Tourism, Professor Jumanne Maghembe, said that Tanzania has no plans to destroy its stockpile, noting that the ivory can still be used in scientific research and as evidence in legal cases against poachers (“Tanzania Says”).
